Rank your top 12 Dynasty QBs

[Weeman]

Bradford is on the wire in most of my leagues. Back to the OP. LoL

Luck
Rodgers
Cam
Wilson
Mariota
Carr
Winston
Dak
Cousins
Stafford
Ryan
Wentz

I lean youth heavily in dynasty rankings. Ranking Brady & Brees in a dynasty top 12 is like putting Bmarsh or Fitz in a top 12 dynasty ranking. It's time to let go & realize that dynasty excludes players going into their 16th seasons not to be biased but because dynasty implies longterm & ignores current production. List players you can build around not have built around for years.

[Valhalla]

I am completely lost with the Bradford support. Like seriously, if you're trying to win any dynasty league are you seriously considering Bradford?

At what point do we accept who he is? Especially after he repeatedly shows us, irregardless of any excuses one wants to make about his team. Andrew Luck has had a dreadful O Line and look at him. Hell Mathew Stafford as well.

I'm not arguing his dynasty value. I'm arguing his NFL value.
As to his season with the Eagles, in 14 games he threw for 3725 yards at 65%, 19 TDs to 14 INTs. Not wonderful, but not horrible either for his first year in the system coming off an ACL. Not a fantasy star but not an NFL disappointment.

Bradford has had so much inconsistency in his career situation with not only team changes, but coaching changes on those teams. For an at a glance perspective, his coaches so far have been spagnulo (fired in short order), fisher (horrible for qbs), chip (off ACL, new system and did alright), turner (ugh fisher 1.2), and a dash of shurmur. His career has been consistent in three big things. One, he consistently has a bottom dwelling OL. Two, he is consistently (almost yearly) learning a new system. Three, he has had a lot of injuries.

Stafford and Luck have had consistent situations/schemes in comparison to Bradford. That is an unfair comparison to make...but think about this for a second. Despite his yearly rather massive situational changes, the (apparently disgustingly low) career yards per attempt from Bradford: 7.0. The career average from Stafford? 7.1. Luck? 7.2. I am not saying I would take Bradford over luck in any situation. I'm just poking holes in the "Bradford can't deliver anything but disgustingly low yards per attempt seasons" narrative.

Irregardless...use either regardless or irrespective.

[Valhalla]

I wonder how Bradford's career would have fared thus far if he were in a shanahan system with a good OL, top running game, throwing to Julio Jones with year to year situational consistency...
Instead, he's been dealt a hand of a...variety platter of garbage for systems...bottom dwelling OLs...bad running games...throwing to...well no one NEAR Julio (amendola/Gibson/Givens, Matthews/Ertz, diggs/thielen)...with NO year to year consistency.

[TheDogPound]

I am completely lost with the Bradford support. Like seriously, if you're trying to win any dynasty league are you seriously considering Bradford?

At what point do we accept who he is? Especially after he repeatedly shows us, irregardless of any excuses one wants to make about his team. Andrew Luck has had a dreadful O Line and look at him. Hell Mathew Stafford as well.

I'm not arguing his dynasty value. I'm arguing his NFL value.
As to his season with the Eagles, in 14 games he threw for 3725 yards at 65%, 19 TDs to 14 INTs. Not wonderful, but not horrible either for his first year in the system coming off an ACL. Not a fantasy star but not an NFL disappointment.

Bradford has had so much inconsistency in his career situation with not only team changes, but coaching changes on those teams. For an at a glance perspective, his coaches so far have been spagnulo (fired in short order), fisher (horrible for qbs), chip (off ACL, new system and did alright), turner (ugh fisher 1.2), and a dash of shurmur. His career has been consistent in three big things. One, he consistently has a bottom dwelling OL. Two, he is consistently (almost yearly) learning a new system. Three, he has had a lot of injuries.

Stafford and Luck have had consistent situations/schemes in comparison to Bradford. That is an unfair comparison to make...but think about this for a second. Despite his yearly rather massive situational changes, the (apparently disgustingly low) career yards per attempt from Bradford: 7.0. The career average from Stafford? 7.1. Luck? 7.2. I am not saying I would take Bradford over luck in any situation. I'm just poking holes in the "Bradford can't deliver anything but disgustingly low yards per attempt seasons" narrative.

Irregardless...use either regardless or irrespective.

Hey man? Your inclination to correct my irregardless reference underscores your Sam Bradford platform.

He's an average QB. Once his time in Minnesota is done he'll probably be relinquished to a back-up or Jon Kitna type of QB, gap fillers.

Yes he throws a good deep ball, yes he's fairly accurate, yes he has all of the tools to be a very good QB. However, it hasn't happened.

I noticed that people will make an excuse riddled argument for a player when they under-perform or don't obtain levels of success that others have. When you consider great players, let alone QBs, their resumes and production speak for themselves. Look at Barry Sanders, Calvin Johnson, Dan Marino, Drew Brees, Terrell Owens (He's very controversial, however, IRRESPECTIVE of his situation or team, he FLAT OUT PERFORMS.), Andrew Luck, etc., etc., etc.

Yes, it may not be fair to compare Sam Bradford to all time great players. However, my point being is that there are players that you have to make excuse riddled arguments for and there are players who flat out perform IRRESPECTIVE of their environment. (Needless to say that Sam Bradford isn't one of those players. Lol)

Nothing about Bradford is Great. I still don't understand why he's being discussed in a Dynasty Forum. He is completely IRRELEVANT.

Please let me know if I used the word IRRELEVANT appropriately.

[ArrylT]

I am completely lost with the Bradford support. Like seriously, if you're trying to win any dynasty league are you seriously considering Bradford?

At what point do we accept who he is? Especially after he repeatedly shows us, irregardless of any excuses one wants to make about his team. Andrew Luck has had a dreadful O Line and look at him. Hell Mathew Stafford as well.

The answer to that question is simple - yes.

Dynasty is a long term game yes - but the end goal every year remains to win more often than you lose correct? IE championship good - dynasty roster that looks nice on paper but doesnt win not so good. Very few leagues award style points.

One way (not the only way) is to target players everyone else hates that you can acquire for cheap and hope that they produce. Not every position, but having a couple of upside flyers can help immensely. Ask owners of Tyrelle Pryor, Kenny Britt or heck all the Zero RB proponents.

Depending on your scoring setting I am pretty confident Bradford was in the 20-24 range and scored very similar to Eli Manning or Cam Newton. Of those 3 QBs which would have cost the least to acquire or draft (if a startup) and therefore left you with more capital to acquire other stronger targers - like a DJ or a Mike Evans?

I do not think a single person on this thread has stated that Bradford is a top 12 QB - but after the top 12, if you can get a QB quite cheap (and as some have said and I have seen Bradford is on waivers) even as a backup for 1-2 weeks ....

So I am not saying Bradford wins you leagues, but I am saying acquiring a few Bradfords allows you to have room to get the other players that do.

[ArrylT]

Example:

Scoring system
Number of Passing TDs 0-10 6 points each
Passing Yards -50-999 .04 point for every 1
Pass Completions 0-99 1 point for every 8
Pass Interceptions Thrown 0-10 -2 points each
Passing 2 Pointers 0-10 2 points

1. 1. Rodgers, Aaron GBP QB 510.02 31.876
2. 2. Ryan, Matt ATL QB 467.46 29.216
3. 3. Brees, Drew NOS QB 464.32 29.020
4. 5. Luck, Andrew IND QB 415.70 27.713
5. 6. Cousins, Kirk WAS QB 398.28 24.892
6. 7. Prescott, Dak DAL QB 372.88 23.305
7. 8. Stafford, Matthew DET QB 371.78 23.236
8. 9. Rivers, Philip SDC QB 370.94 23.184
9. 10. Carr, Derek OAK QB 369.38 24.625
10. 11. Bortles, Blake JAC QB 368.10 23.006
11. 12. Winston, Jameis TBB QB 360.10 22.506
12. 14. Wilson, Russell SEA QB 354.06 22.129
13. 15. Mariota, Marcus TEN QB 350.94 23.396
14. 16. Roethlisberger, Ben PIT QB 349.16 24.940
15. 17. Brady, Tom NEP QB 346.56 28.880
16. 18. Palmer, Carson ARI QB 342.12 22.808
17. 19. Dalton, Andy CIN QB 340.64 21.290
18. 21. Taylor, Tyrod BUF QB 336.92 22.461
19. 22. Flacco, Joe BAL QB 336.48 21.030
20. 23. Manning, Eli NYG QB 326.18 20.386
21. 24. Newton, Cam CAR QB 324.26 21.617
22. 26. Bradford, Sam MIN QB 314.88 20.992
23. 32. Smith, Alex KCC QB 298.78 19.919
24. 34. Wentz, Carson PHI QB 292.98 18.311
25. 37. Tannehill, Ryan MIA QB 262.20 20.169

[TheDogPound]

I am completely lost with the Bradford support. Like seriously, if you're trying to win any dynasty league are you seriously considering Bradford?

At what point do we accept who he is? Especially after he repeatedly shows us, irregardless of any excuses one wants to make about his team. Andrew Luck has had a dreadful O Line and look at him. Hell Mathew Stafford as well.

The answer to that question is simple - yes.

Dynasty is a long term game yes - but the end goal every year remains to win more often than you lose correct? IE championship good - dynasty roster that looks nice on paper but doesnt win not so good. Very few leagues award style points.

One way (not the only way) is to target players everyone else hates that you can acquire for cheap and hope that they produce. Not every position, but having a couple of upside flyers can help immensely. Ask owners of Tyrelle Pryor, Kenny Britt or heck all the Zero RB proponents.

Depending on your scoring setting I am pretty confident Bradford was in the 20-24 range and scored very similar to Eli Manning or Cam Newton. Of those 3 QBs which would have cost the least to acquire or draft (if a startup) and therefore left you with more capital to acquire other stronger targers - like a DJ or a Mike Evans?

I do not think a single person on this thread has stated that Bradford is a top 12 QB - but after the top 12, if you can get a QB quite cheap (and as some have said and I have seen Bradford is on waivers) even as a backup for 1-2 weeks ....

So I am not saying Bradford wins you leagues, but I am saying acquiring a few Bradfords allows you to have room to get the other players that do.

Great..analogy. I definitely get your angle however I still feel like one should not hold their breath on Bradford.

If you need a bye week filler then sure. If you want a backup qb then sure. Otherwise, hecks no.

Eli AND Cam BOTH had off-seasons last year. I think it's a moot point emphasizing how Bradford finished last season in comparison to them. Both of them are expected to bounce back. Bradford, not so much.

I think in regards to fantasy let alone dynasty you want to target sleepers or hated players who could boom or bust into elite or very solid production. Bradford just isn't on my radar and I don't seem him booming into anything.

Let's talk DeShaun Watson, Blake Bortles, Ryan Tannehill, Jared Goff, Carson Wentz, Patrick Mahomes, Mitchell Turbisky, etc.

Now these players may not all be hated but I'm willing to guess that they can be obtained in any league where one is considering Bradford. IMO, these are all better options than Bradford. I would take any one of them over Bradford.

I see the post with the stats, however, I am just simply not buying Bradford's stock. That's just me.

[ArrylT]

From that example we can see that Bradfords PPG was extremely similar to many other QB2s - but even today Bradfords cost (due to long term uncertainty and other variables) is likely much cheaper than many other QBs. In my most recent startup - which was a superflex - Bradford was the 29th QB taken. Yet in his first year in a new system, Bradford actually performed like a mid range QB 2 - dont forget he didnt play Game 1 otherwise his total points would have likely put him in the top 18 (another 20-22 points), and now he has another year in the same system, with a better O-Line and more weapons. Yet somehow Bradfords value is worth less than it was a year ago?

Why? Because of Bridgewater? Because of some yet to be drafted QB in 2018? If Minnesota goes even 9-7 they might not even be in a position to draft the elite qb of 2018 ...

I'm not saying Bradford is elite. I am not even saying Bradford will succeed. But at the cost to acquire him, and in the situation he is in, this seems like a low risk gamble. Obviously this is league market & scoring dependant.

[ArrylT]

Great..analogy. I definitely get your angle however I still feel like one should not hold their breath on Bradford.

If you need a bye week filler then sure. If you want a backup qb then sure. Otherwise, hecks no.

Eli AND Cam BOTH had off-seasons last year. I think it's a moot point emphasizing how Bradford finished last season in comparison to them. Both of them are expected to bounce back. Bradford, not so much.

I think in regards to fantasy let alone dynasty you want to target sleepers or hated players who could boom or bust into elite or very solid production. Bradford just isn't on my radar and I don't seem him booming into anything.

Let's talk DeShaun Watson, Blake Bortles, Ryan Tannehill, Jared Goff, Carson Wentz, Patrick Mahomes, Mitchell Turbisky, etc.

Now these players may not all be hated but I'm willing to guess that they can be obtained in any league where one is considering Bradford. IMO, these are all better options than Bradford. I would take any one of them over Bradford.

I see the post with the stats, however, I am just simply not buying Bradford's stock. That's just me.

And I am not trying to convince you to.

Just pointing out that had someone bought Bradford last year they would have had a much better bang per buck than someone who bought Newton or even Eli M.

In Rookie Drafts I'm starting to see Watson go high - even in 1 QB leagues - I'm talking late 1st early 2nd high. You're not going to need to spend that to get a Bradford.

I've seen him go as high as 1.11 in a 1 QB league. Early on they were going late 2nd early 3rd but Watson and Mahomes are starting to creep up.

Maybe Watson outplays Bradford - but this has been billed as a weak QB class & that all the QBs need seasoning, and we should expect Watson or Mahomes or Trubisky or even Kizer to outplay Bradford this year? Someones bound to get sour on one of them and you can buy them (hopefully) next year for less than they originally cost.

I actually agree and think some of those QBs you listed can and will do better than Bradford this year, but just like some QBs had down years this year others will do so this year also. If Bradford simply maintains what he did last year then he becomes a big value over those QBs who have an off year - and ergo have a value decrease (even if slight). But if Bradford can even improve (and again I am not saying he will just that the cost to see if he can is really low) then he becomes a huge bargain - like Nick Foles 2013 big.

If you can spend $5 or $1 on a lottery ticket and the odds to win and amount you can win, are similar, why spend the $5? Now I get most people dont like the odds of Bradford to hit - but how much of that is bias??

[TheDogPound]

Great..analogy. I definitely get your angle however I still feel like one should not hold their breath on Bradford.

If you need a bye week filler then sure. If you want a backup qb then sure. Otherwise, hecks no.

Eli AND Cam BOTH had off-seasons last year. I think it's a moot point emphasizing how Bradford finished last season in comparison to them. Both of them are expected to bounce back. Bradford, not so much.

I think in regards to fantasy let alone dynasty you want to target sleepers or hated players who could boom or bust into elite or very solid production. Bradford just isn't on my radar and I don't seem him booming into anything.

Let's talk DeShaun Watson, Blake Bortles, Ryan Tannehill, Jared Goff, Carson Wentz, Patrick Mahomes, Mitchell Turbisky, etc.

Now these players may not all be hated but I'm willing to guess that they can be obtained in any league where one is considering Bradford. IMO, these are all better options than Bradford. I would take any one of them over Bradford.

I see the post with the stats, however, I am just simply not buying Bradford's stock. That's just me.

And I am not trying to convince you to.

Just pointing out that had someone bought Bradford last year they would have had a much better bang per buck than someone who bought Newton or even Eli M.

In Rookie Drafts I'm starting to see Watson go high - even in 1 QB leagues - I'm talking late 1st early 2nd high. You're not going to need to spend that to get a Bradford.

I've seen him go as high as 1.11 in a 1 QB league. Early on they were going late 2nd early 3rd but Watson and Mahomes are starting to creep up.

Maybe Watson outplays Bradford - but this has been billed as a weak QB class & that all the QBs need seasoning, and we should expect Watson or Mahomes or Trubisky or even Kizer to outplay Bradford this year? Someones bound to get sour on one of them and you can buy them (hopefully) next year for less than they originally cost.

I actually agree and think some of those QBs you listed can and will do better than Bradford this year, but just like some QBs had down years this year others will do so this year also. If Bradford simply maintains what he did last year then he becomes a big value over those QBs who have an off year - and ergo have a value decrease (even if slight). But if Bradford can even improve (and again I am not saying he will just that the cost to see if he can is really low) then he becomes a huge bargain - like Nick Foles 2013 big.

If you can spend $5 or $1 on a lottery ticket and the odds to win and amount you can win, are similar, why spend the $5? Now I get most people dont like the odds of Bradford to hit - but how much of that is bias??

Well I get you on the bang for the buck analogy. No debate here.

[lukkynumber13]

This thread is the ultimate manifestation of what the off-season is like, for dynasty owners.

[Valhalla]

Hey man? Your inclination to correct my irregardless reference underscores your Sam Bradford platform.

He's an average QB. Once his time in Minnesota is done he'll probably be relinquished to a back-up or Jon Kitna type of QB, gap fillers.

Yes he throws a good deep ball, yes he's fairly accurate, yes he has all of the tools to be a very good QB. However, it hasn't happened.

I noticed that people will make an excuse riddled argument for a player when they under-perform or don't obtain levels of success that others have. When you consider great players, let alone QBs, their resumes and production speak for themselves. Look at Barry Sanders, Calvin Johnson, Dan Marino, Drew Brees, Terrell Owens (He's very controversial, however, IRRESPECTIVE of his situation or team, he FLAT OUT PERFORMS.), Andrew Luck, etc., etc., etc.

Yes, it may not be fair to compare Sam Bradford to all time great players. However, my point being is that there are players that you have to make excuse riddled arguments for and there are players who flat out perform IRRESPECTIVE of their environment. (Needless to say that Sam Bradford isn't one of those players. Lol)

Nothing about Bradford is Great. I still don't understand why he's being discussed in a Dynasty Forum. He is completely IRRELEVANT.

Please let me know if I used the word IRRELEVANT appropriately.

DogPound, I'm sorry I hit a nerve there. I shouldn't assume to suggest a grammatical change. Some people take it as an insult to their intelligence, and I can see how you read it that way. That would piss me off too. I didn't mean it that way. I used to use that word as well. I'm sure there is proof of it on a message board somewhere, with me being corrected. Sorry it pissed you off, but really, it isn't something to get pissed off at. I didn't mean it as a slight, and even if you believe I did, I'm a forum guy that you don't know. Chalk me up as a tool if you like and move on. Don't let things like that piss you off.

[Valhalla]

...
Yes he throws a good deep ball, yes he's fairly accurate, yes he has all of the tools to be a very good QB. However, it hasn't happened.
...
Nothing about Bradford is Great. I still don't understand why he's being discussed in a Dynasty Forum. He is completely IRRELEVANT.
...

I'll preface this by first saying I DON'T expect Bradford to be in MVP discussions, so don't lose it on me.

Those two comments above...could have been common comments of Matt Ryan before last season. He had the tools, but just couldn't put up a great season. He was average...with an elite running game, line, and WR...and going into his NINTH season with the same team, having numerous golden opportunities to do more with his talent. Yet he just hadn't done it yet.
Bradford, entering only his second season with the Vikings, is probably in the most stable, established and talented situation (playbook, coaches, WRs) he has had entering a season thus far in his career. That's absurd, but true. Do I expect him to be a stud? Nope. Take a look at my own top 12 (he isn't there). Take a look at my own post history and you'll see I don't consider a QB a stud unless he's in the top 3-4. Do I expect him to have a decent chance to improve on his numbers? Sure. The line is better. The running game should be better. The offense as a whole should score more often. I believe he'll be better with Shurmur's system than he was with Turner's (possibly a behind the scenes forced change was the reason Turner resigned abruptly mid-season?). I believe he has a chance to be better entering a season with a system he has been in, has an offseason with, and enters familiar with his WRs. Last year, he came in after the 4th preseason game...and got a week to work with the team...and put up 258.4ypg. Push that into 16 games and it's 4135 yards (and a pretty paltry 21.3 TDs) coming in blind with an OL that was...well... so injured they were down to playing an undrafted free agent rookie to protect his blind side eventually.
So can Bradford improve on his 23rd ranked QB scoring entering his second year with the Vikings? I think so. Does he cost you just about nothing in most places? Yep. Honestly, it wouldn't shock me to see him creep into the top 12 and become a more respected QB in his early 30s years.
Funny that none of us put Bradford into the top 12 discussions, but he's being heavily discussed in a top 12 QB discussion thread. I should probably just bump the old Bradford thread if this continues.

[ArrylT]

I dont know if it was you or someone else - but Im pretty sure someone said polarizing players make for better debates & discussions (if done correctly). There are only so many ways to argue ARod vs. Luck or Winston vs. Mariota, but for players like a Kenny Britt or a Tyrelle Pryor or Sam Bradford who've either had bad luck, bad injuries, or massive circumstance changes it makes for very interesting perspectives as we all try to guess whats next to happen.

[TheDogPound]

Hey man? Your inclination to correct my irregardless reference underscores your Sam Bradford platform.

He's an average QB. Once his time in Minnesota is done he'll probably be relinquished to a back-up or Jon Kitna type of QB, gap fillers.

Yes he throws a good deep ball, yes he's fairly accurate, yes he has all of the tools to be a very good QB. However, it hasn't happened.

I noticed that people will make an excuse riddled argument for a player when they under-perform or don't obtain levels of success that others have. When you consider great players, let alone QBs, their resumes and production speak for themselves. Look at Barry Sanders, Calvin Johnson, Dan Marino, Drew Brees, Terrell Owens (He's very controversial, however, IRRESPECTIVE of his situation or team, he FLAT OUT PERFORMS.), Andrew Luck, etc., etc., etc.

Yes, it may not be fair to compare Sam Bradford to all time great players. However, my point being is that there are players that you have to make excuse riddled arguments for and there are players who flat out perform IRRESPECTIVE of their environment. (Needless to say that Sam Bradford isn't one of those players. Lol)

Nothing about Bradford is Great. I still don't understand why he's being discussed in a Dynasty Forum. He is completely IRRELEVANT.

Please let me know if I used the word IRRELEVANT appropriately.

DogPound, I'm sorry I hit a nerve there. I shouldn't assume to suggest a grammatical change. Some people take it as an insult to their intelligence, and I can see how you read it that way. That would piss me off too. I didn't mean it that way. I used to use that word as well. I'm sure there is proof of it on a message board somewhere, with me being corrected. Sorry it pissed you off, but really, it isn't something to get pissed off at. I didn't mean it as a slight, and even if you believe I did, I'm a forum guy that you don't know. Chalk me up as a tool if you like and move on. Don't let things like that piss you off.

No worries man. It did hit a nerve. My apologies for responding that way and thanks for your apology.